A subsequent purchaser of property cannot claim right to appeal if the purchase violates an existing temporary injunction, reinforcing principles of lis pendens and judicial integrity.

ORDER :

The second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 7-7-2015 passed by Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal Number 38A/2012, by which the Court below has refused to grant leave to the appellant to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30-03-2012 passed by Seventh Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior, District Gwalior in Civil Suit Number 22A/2012.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that Jahar Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff may not be dispossessed forcefully and no third-party right be created. Initially, the suit was also filed against plaintiff No.2 - Bhoori, but later on she was transposed as plaintiff. Jahar Singh died during the pendency of suit. Accordingly, his legal representatives were taken on record. The respondents No.1 to 5 are the legal representatives of Jahar Singh, whereas respondent number 6 is the plaintiff No.2.

3. Kailashibai, one of the legal representatives of Jahar Singh, also died during pendency of this appeal. Therefore, her legal representatives were brought on record. Similarly, Rambeti, the daughter of Jahar Singh, also died during the pendency of this appeal and accordingly her legal representatives were brought on record.

4. It is suffice to mention here that the trial Court by order dated 30-10- 2006 issued a temporary injunction order thereby restraining the parties from alienating the suit property and they were directed to maintain the status quo. It appears that defendants, namely Son Devi and Sarnam, executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant on 15.04.2008 and 21.04.2008 and the entire subject matter of the suit was alienated to the appellant. No application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed before the trial Court. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 30-03-2012 passed in Civil Suit No.22A/2012 decreed the suit and held that the plaintiffs have 1/4th share in the property in dispute in khasra Nos. 228, 233, and 239. A decree for permanent injunction was issued against defendants No. 1 to 3 to the effect that neither they shall dispossess the plaintiffs nor they shall transfer the property in any manner.

5. It appears that the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . Later on, an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed seeking leave of the appellate Court to prefer an appeal. By the impugned order, the appeal has been dismissed and the leave has been refused on the ground that the appellant had purchased the property in dispute during the pendency of suit and that too in violation of the order of temporary injunction.

6. Challenging the order passed by the appellate Court, counsel for the appellant submits that in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and Others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 , even in a case where the suit property was sold in violation of the temporary injunction order, still the subsequent purchaser can be permitted to be impleaded as defendant in the civil suit and proposed the following substantial questions of law :

"1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application for permission to file appeal wrongly, illegally and against the law?

2. Whether the finding given by learned First Appellate Court that the sale deed of the appellant is null and void is contrary to law, liable to be set aside?

3. Whether learned First Appellate Court erred in not granting opportunity to the appellant to contest the case on merit and